Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 146 (KAR)

Hussain Bi v. Land Tribunal, by its Chairman

2014-02-13

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. The order of the Land Tribunal Annexure-D dated 22.10.1998 is called in question in this writ petition. By the said order, the application filed by the petitioner for grant of occupancy rights in Form No.7 is rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner is that Mr. Rajesa was the protected tenant of the land bearing C.S. No. 1638/3/4 measuring 11 acres 16 guntas of Basavana Bagewadi in Bijapur district. The father of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 viz., Jevoorsa Makanandar is the owner of the property. The said Rajesa cultivated the property from 1950 onwards till his death. After the demise of Rajesa, petitioner's husband Aminsa continued the tenancy. Aminsa is the son of Rajesa. After the death of Aminsa, the petitioner being the wife of Aminsa is stated to be cultivating the property as a tenant. 3. This case has got a chequered career. This is the 5lh round of litigation. On the last occasion, the matter reached the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.6992/99, which came to be disposed of on 17.2.2000 by setting aside the order of remand made by the learned Single Judge, with an observation that the learned Single Judge shall decide the matter on merits instead of remanding the matter to the Tribunal The Division Bench having felt that the detailed order is passed by the Tribunal and all records to be considered are available, has observed that the Single Judge shall decide the writ petition on merits. 4. I have perused the records produced by the Government Advocate meticulously. The Agava Lavani Patra (Deed of Advance) was executed by Rajesa Challigidaa in favour of the landlord on 28.5.1956. The lease deed is on record at page-155 of the Land Tribunal Records. The said lease deed clearly reveals that the property bearing C.S. No.1638/3/4 measuring 11 acres 16 guntas situated at Basavana Bagewadi is taken on lease by paying the advance lease amount by Rajesa from the land owner for a period of six years. The terms and conditions of the lease are also mentioned. Pursuant to such lease deed, the name of Rajesa came to be entered in the revenue records in the year 1956. The mode of cultivation is mentioned as No.3 i.e. tenancy. The name of Rajesa (i.e., the tenant) continued in the revenue records till the year 1967-68. The terms and conditions of the lease are also mentioned. Pursuant to such lease deed, the name of Rajesa came to be entered in the revenue records in the year 1956. The mode of cultivation is mentioned as No.3 i.e. tenancy. The name of Rajesa (i.e., the tenant) continued in the revenue records till the year 1967-68. From the year 1968-69, the name of Rajesa is deleted and the word, 'self' is entered in the revenue records. While entering so, there is no mention as to why change is made in the revenue records. No mutation is made. Be that as it may, the name of Rajesa continued in the revenue records up to the year 1967-68. The tax paid receipts evidencing that the taxes are paid by Rajesa are also on record. The deed of surrender of tenancy on stamp paper of Rs.3/- dated 31.8.1974 executed by the petitioner's husband viz., Aminsa s/o Rajesa is found at page-77 of the Land Tribunal Records. The said deed states that Rajesa i.e., father of Aminsa was the ordinary tenant of the property in question till about 5 to 6 years prior to 31.8.1974. Thereafter Aminsa s/o Rajesa continued to cultivate the property as ordinary tenant. By virtue of the surrender deed dated 31.8.1974 , Aminsa stated to have surrendered his tenancy in favour of the owner. It is clearly stated in the said deed that Aminsa is the ordinary tenant of the property in question till that day and he is in cultivation of the property till 31.8.1974. The aforementioned documents on record clearly reveal that Rajesa has entered into the property as ordinary tenant in the year 1956. He continued to cultivate the property as tenant till his death i.e., somewhere in the year 1967-68. Thereafter Aminsa s/o Rajesa continued as the ordinary tenant as on the appointed dated i.e., 1.3.1974. 5. At this stage, learned advocate for the private respondents submits that Rajesa has surrendered the tenancy in the year 1968 and therefore it is not open for the petitioner or her husband to claim tenancy over the property since they were not cultivating the property as tenants as on 1.3.1974. Such submission cannot be accepted. There is nothing on record to show that Rajesa has surrendered the tenancy at any point of time in favour of the private respondents. Such submission cannot be accepted. There is nothing on record to show that Rajesa has surrendered the tenancy at any point of time in favour of the private respondents. Though the name of Rajesa was not continued after the year 1968f it cannot be presumed that Rajesa surrendered the tenancy. On the other hand Rajesa has expired somewhere in the year 1967-68 and therefore his name was not continued in the revenue records as a tenant. It is by now well settled that the tenant cannot surrender the property in favour of the landlord inasmuch as the tenanted land would vest in the State as on 1.3.1974. Once the land is vested in the State as on 1.3.1974, the owner would have lost all his rights over the property except for getting the occupancy price. Tenant cannot even relinquish the property in favour of the owner inasmuch as tenanted property would vest in the State as on 1.3.1974. 6. The very fact that the petitioner's husband Aminsa executed an agreement in favour of the private respondents on 31.8.1974 surrendering the property itself goes to show that he was in possession of the property as a tenant as on 1.3.1974. The document dated 31.8.1974 is on record and the same is undisputed. In the very document, it is made clear that the tenant is in possession of the property even as on 31.8.1974, which clearly means that the tenancy continued as on the appointed date i.e., on 1.3.1974= Based on such undisputed material on record, the only conclusion that can be reached is that the petitioner being the wife of the tenant -Aminsa is entitled to occupancy rights over the property in question. All the aforementioned records are misread by the Tribunal and has come to the wrong conclusion. The order of the Land Tribunal is one sided and biased. The undisputed materials on record are misconstrued by the Land Tribunal and consequently has come to a wrong conclusion. Hence the order of the Tribunal is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order is made: Writ Petition is allowed. The order of the Land Tribunal at Annexure-D dated 22.10.1998 stands quashed. Occupancy rights shall be granted in favour of the petitioner over the property in question and consequently occupancy certificate shall be issued to her.